Author
Topic: Women's March (Read 8044 times)

Not even close. I've written about it - here - easily five or six times. The short answer is, the market is a predictor of future profits. If there are no profits to be had, people don't invest. It's better to sit on your money than to invest it and lose it. So around Feb of 2007 or so, Obama threw his hat in the ring. We knew Bush wasn't going to run, so it was down to about four people, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Like in 2016, Clinton had the early lead with the Superdelegates and what not, but then a funny thing happened. In places like Philly, where I lived, Obama did a LOT better than anyone thought he was going to. And so if you track "consumer confidence" - a leading indicator of where markets are going to go, and whether consumers, and this includes investors, were willing to risk their money - you start to see some synergies. All the movement happened AFTER he declared, and AFTER he started his "change you can believe in" and AFTER the grass roots thing started to take hold. I know - FOR A FACT - that in my industry, commercial real estate (and I personally bought and sold impaired properties, so I wasn't part of the "mortgage fiasco") my investors said point blank: "We don't know what is going to happen. There's a growing backlash to the Bush years, we know if this swings left, we're going to have SOME change in environmental/business regulation, and if it swings to this Obama guy, we have NO IDEA where those changes are going to go. We're going to wait this out." And then Obama won, and the wait continued, as he did start to put a ton of limits on the movement of money.

I'm over-simplifying this because I simply do not have time to cull all the dates again. I'll see if I can find where I wrote this before in more detail with cites and links and stuff. But it's REAL. I'm not saying it's ALL Obama, but I am saying that we hd the same (bad) rules for two decades and had at least 12 soft landings when the same thing that happened in '07 and '08 happened, without a crash, but once there was no certainty as to how it was going to be handled, and once consumer confidence cratered (during his term it hit the lowest levels EVER, and until very recently was well under 100, the bench mark for average) there was no one willing to keep their money in the market and take the chance that he'd do the right thing. And at least ECONOMICALLY, he has shown a consistent lack of understanding of how the markets work, throughout his terms in office.

I believe we have argued about this before, yes.

The housing market peaked somewhere in late 2007/very early 2008. Obama being president was a pretty remote possibility at that point. Also, the housing market was a bubble many years before that. The laws of financial thermodynamics basically ensured that it was going to pop, and pop big, no matter who was president.

As you can see from the Case-Shiller values, housing prices got WAY out of control starting around 1999-2000. Basically right after the Commodities Futures Modernization act was passed, which allowed hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of unregulated financial side-betting on the value of US housing. Which of course inflated the value of garbage home loans in the first place, because their risk could be "tranched" out of existence.

You just can't look at that chart and assign blame to Obama.

It just might have been that your investors didn't know jack shit. They were investing in an unsustainable, irrational bubble. As long as they weren't the greater fool, though, they made money. No president on earth could have sustained a financial bubble that was that far out of whack.

Logged

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

Not even close. I've written about it - here - easily five or six times. The short answer is, the market is a predictor of future profits. If there are no profits to be had, people don't invest. It's better to sit on your money than to invest it and lose it. So around Feb of 2007 or so, Obama threw his hat in the ring. We knew Bush wasn't going to run, so it was down to about four people, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Like in 2016, Clinton had the early lead with the Superdelegates and what not, but then a funny thing happened. In places like Philly, where I lived, Obama did a LOT better than anyone thought he was going to. And so if you track "consumer confidence" - a leading indicator of where markets are going to go, and whether consumers, and this includes investors, were willing to risk their money - you start to see some synergies. All the movement happened AFTER he declared, and AFTER he started his "change you can believe in" and AFTER the grass roots thing started to take hold. I know - FOR A FACT - that in my industry, commercial real estate (and I personally bought and sold impaired properties, so I wasn't part of the "mortgage fiasco") my investors said point blank: "We don't know what is going to happen. There's a growing backlash to the Bush years, we know if this swings left, we're going to have SOME change in environmental/business regulation, and if it swings to this Obama guy, we have NO IDEA where those changes are going to go. We're going to wait this out." And then Obama won, and the wait continued, as he did start to put a ton of limits on the movement of money.

I'm over-simplifying this because I simply do not have time to cull all the dates again. I'll see if I can find where I wrote this before in more detail with cites and links and stuff. But it's REAL. I'm not saying it's ALL Obama, but I am saying that we hd the same (bad) rules for two decades and had at least 12 soft landings when the same thing that happened in '07 and '08 happened, without a crash, but once there was no certainty as to how it was going to be handled, and once consumer confidence cratered (during his term it hit the lowest levels EVER, and until very recently was well under 100, the bench mark for average) there was no one willing to keep their money in the market and take the chance that he'd do the right thing. And at least ECONOMICALLY, he has shown a consistent lack of understanding of how the markets work, throughout his terms in office.

I believe we have argued about this before, yes.

The housing market peaked somewhere in late 2007/very early 2008. Obama being president was a pretty remote possibility at that point. Also, the housing market was a bubble many years before that. The laws of financial thermodynamics basically ensured that it was going to pop, and pop big, no matter who was president.

As you can see from the Case-Shiller values, housing prices got WAY out of control starting around 1999-2000. Basically right after the Commodities Futures Modernization act was passed, which allowed hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of unregulated financial side-betting on the value of US housing. Which of course inflated the value of garbage home loans in the first place, because their risk could be "tranched" out of existence.

You just can't look at that chart and assign blame to Obama.

It just might have been that your investors didn't know jack shit. They were investing in an unsustainable, irrational bubble. As long as they weren't the greater fool, though, they made money. No president on earth could have sustained a financial bubble that was that far out of whack.

You didn't read my post clearly enough. I wasn't in the HOME market, I was in the COMMERCIAL market. I was in the business of buying contaminated property, cleaning it up to state and/or Federal "clean" standards (thus getting most deed restrictions either removed or reduced to the bare minimum, which was usually just "no residential use") and reselling it. Investors - some of the biggest in the country - all basically said "until we know what's happening with this "change you can believe in", we're sitting pat and not investing in cleaning up a property if the standards are going to change midway through". And that's just one issue faced. Most of these investors weren't at all interested in the mortgage market, because they either paid cash or leveraged other properties as they became "clean". Essentially, we were a brownfields operation (that makes it sound not legit, but it was a good service; I put tens of millions of dollars of unused and under-utilized properties back into productive, tax-generating use in the four or five years leading up to the crash). The initial housing bubble popped - as opposed to managed deflation - because people with money panicked and pulled. It was like a Ponzi scheme collapsing.

I get it if you don't buy into this - you don't buy into most things that shift ANY responsibility to the left - but this isn't mad babbling from a crazy right wing lunatic. I lived it. I sat in a board room more than once to sign deals and had the conversation "we've decided to keep our powder dry. Unless YOU want to take the risk for the environmental cleanup (which I certainly did not)." This wasn't at all about bad loans to people who could afford them. This was GOOD money that decided the investment playing field under Obama and (to a lesser extent, if you want the concession) Hillary, but at this point it wasn't as far fetched as you make it out; the poll numbers lagged the groundswell, so they sat it out. No money moving means no economic movement. Which means "CRASH".

We also saw the opposite, to a slightly lesser degree, when it became clear Trump was going to win. The futures shot through the roof. And even though I've been saying this for a couple years now, Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier ALL said exactly the same thing the night of the election.

How many of the 4 million woman in that march have disrespected themselves by having one night stands with complete strangers? Yeah I know, its there choice to cheapen themselves...

I'm very interested in the logical proofs and arguments one can mobilize to claim something like this. Using what metrics can one claim that a woman cheapens herself every time she has sex with a dude, whether she knows/loves him or not.

I'm just genuinely interested in what Tick has to say for himself on this issue, i.e. how he can justify the claim that women definitively "cheapen themselves" every time they have sex with someone outside of a monogamous relationship, as if all women (perhaps just women) have some sort of invisible allotment of worth that diminishes every time they fuck someone new. Just curious.

You didn't read my post clearly enough. I wasn't in the HOME market, I was in the COMMERCIAL market. I was in the business of buying contaminated property, cleaning it up to state and/or Federal "clean" standards (thus getting most deed restrictions either removed or reduced to the bare minimum, which was usually just "no residential use") and reselling it. Investors - some of the biggest in the country - all basically said "until we know what's happening with this "change you can believe in", we're sitting pat and not investing in cleaning up a property if the standards are going to change midway through". And that's just one issue faced. Most of these investors weren't at all interested in the mortgage market, because they either paid cash or leveraged other properties as they became "clean". Essentially, we were a brownfields operation (that makes it sound not legit, but it was a good service; I put tens of millions of dollars of unused and under-utilized properties back into productive, tax-generating use in the four or five years leading up to the crash). The initial housing bubble popped - as opposed to managed deflation - because people with money panicked and pulled. It was like a Ponzi scheme collapsing.

I get it if you don't buy into this - you don't buy into most things that shift ANY responsibility to the left - but this isn't mad babbling from a crazy right wing lunatic. I lived it. I sat in a board room more than once to sign deals and had the conversation "we've decided to keep our powder dry. Unless YOU want to take the risk for the environmental cleanup (which I certainly did not)." This wasn't at all about bad loans to people who could afford them. This was GOOD money that decided the investment playing field under Obama and (to a lesser extent, if you want the concession) Hillary, but at this point it wasn't as far fetched as you make it out; the poll numbers lagged the groundswell, so they sat it out. No money moving means no economic movement. Which means "CRASH".

We also saw the opposite, to a slightly lesser degree, when it became clear Trump was going to win. The futures shot through the roof. And even though I've been saying this for a couple years now, Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier ALL said exactly the same thing the night of the election.

I'm still not buying it. The commercial RE market is inextricably linked to the home RE market, which are both ultimately linked to the stock market. Which was linked to commercial insurance and banking. If that was the reasoning in your boardrooms, they were a blind squirrel finding a nut. Commercial real estate was going to crash no matter what, with the credit markets inherently doomed.

Logged

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

How many of the 4 million woman in that march have disrespected themselves by having one night stands with complete strangers? Yeah I know, its there choice to cheapen themselves...

I'm very interested in the logical proofs and arguments one can mobilize to claim something like this. Using what metrics can one claim that a woman cheapens herself every time she has sex with a dude, whether she knows/loves him or not.

Pretty sure you're going to keep waiting, because there really is no acceptable way to justify it.

I believe that was the person you quoted but serious question since I don't understand this order Trump signed that you two are discussing. Are we currently (before this was signed) funding abortions in other countries? Why is that something America should/would do? I don't understand, I am pro-choice but trying to understand what this means.

That's a good question. I feel the same way you do, I have no problem with the law that's on the books in the US, meaning women can get abortions as they wish (personally I'm against abortions but I don't think I have the right to tell a women what they can and can't do), but having taxpayer money fund that for women in other countries doesn't fly with me. I'm totally okay with the US not doing that.

How many of the 4 million woman in that march have disrespected themselves by having one night stands with complete strangers? Yeah I know, its there choice to cheapen themselves...

I'm very interested in the logical proofs and arguments one can mobilize to claim something like this. Using what metrics can one claim that a woman cheapens herself every time she has sex with a dude, whether she knows/loves him or not.

Pretty sure you're going to keep waiting, because there really is no acceptable way to justify it.

You didn't read my post clearly enough. I wasn't in the HOME market, I was in the COMMERCIAL market. I was in the business of buying contaminated property, cleaning it up to state and/or Federal "clean" standards (thus getting most deed restrictions either removed or reduced to the bare minimum, which was usually just "no residential use") and reselling it. Investors - some of the biggest in the country - all basically said "until we know what's happening with this "change you can believe in", we're sitting pat and not investing in cleaning up a property if the standards are going to change midway through". And that's just one issue faced. Most of these investors weren't at all interested in the mortgage market, because they either paid cash or leveraged other properties as they became "clean". Essentially, we were a brownfields operation (that makes it sound not legit, but it was a good service; I put tens of millions of dollars of unused and under-utilized properties back into productive, tax-generating use in the four or five years leading up to the crash). The initial housing bubble popped - as opposed to managed deflation - because people with money panicked and pulled. It was like a Ponzi scheme collapsing.

I get it if you don't buy into this - you don't buy into most things that shift ANY responsibility to the left - but this isn't mad babbling from a crazy right wing lunatic. I lived it. I sat in a board room more than once to sign deals and had the conversation "we've decided to keep our powder dry. Unless YOU want to take the risk for the environmental cleanup (which I certainly did not)." This wasn't at all about bad loans to people who could afford them. This was GOOD money that decided the investment playing field under Obama and (to a lesser extent, if you want the concession) Hillary, but at this point it wasn't as far fetched as you make it out; the poll numbers lagged the groundswell, so they sat it out. No money moving means no economic movement. Which means "CRASH".

We also saw the opposite, to a slightly lesser degree, when it became clear Trump was going to win. The futures shot through the roof. And even though I've been saying this for a couple years now, Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier ALL said exactly the same thing the night of the election.

I'm still not buying it. The commercial RE market is inextricably linked to the home RE market, which are both ultimately linked to the stock market. Which was linked to commercial insurance and banking. If that was the reasoning in your boardrooms, they were a blind squirrel finding a nut. Commercial real estate was going to crash no matter what, with the credit markets inherently doomed.

And the stock market is almost all driven by CONSUMER CONFIDENCE of FUTURE PROFITS. If investors think that GE's number is risky because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to go all Draconian on environmental regs, or labor laws, or healthcare, the stock is going to go down (or at a minimum stay static). Which is what happened in '08. If investors think that GE's number is accurate, or even a little conservative, because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to promote a business friendly environment, the stock is going to rise. We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since. I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real. This is fairly well documented.

It was one part of three he signed that day. But, still, the point is ....well, to the point.

Not a shout, but where do we see seven women signing into bills what men can or cannot do?

But wait a second; while I philosophically and from a perception standpoint feel the time is already here that we have a woman President, we need a viable candidate. You can't attribute Trump's beating Hillary to "sexism". I'm chomping at the bit to vote for a viable candidate, and what do we get? Lying criminals and corporate shills like Hillary Clinton, boring wonks like Jill Stein, or shrill media hogs like Elizabeth Warren? They lost for the same reasons that Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz lost. THEY STINK. There are PLENTY of smart, articulate, savvy, strategic women out there, but they need to RUN. That's not "sexism" (in reality, it's probably women proving once and for all that they are the smarter sex; who would WANT that job??). Condi Rice runs, I'll be first in line to cast my vote for her. Wendy Davis. Mary Fallin. Kirsten Gillibrand. Kamala Harris. (And yes, some of those are Dems.)

This was the reasoning for my initial response to Harmony and Chknptpie. The cause is good and just, but let's not a) make it more than it is, and b) try to lump all our issues into this one cause.

Yes but your moral compass has to come from somewhere. I'm asking from where. What exactly does your moral compass say to you?

What exactly is the point of hammering him? I'm all for demanding someone back up their ideas, and I've been known to heavy hand someone to make the point, but if one thinks, morally, that certain acts demean people, why does that need more? There are people that think that women doing porn - even of their own free will - is demeaning. I don't share that belief, but if you look at it from the perspective of the people that USE porn, predominantly men, and how THEY then perceive women from their roles in porn, it's not a simple calculus. Why is casual sex any different, even if you disagree with it? If men (and perhaps other women) then view that as a woman conceding her worth to her sexual attraction, who's to say that's wrong? Who are you to question the calibration of someone's moral compass?

I don't necessarily agree with Tick, but I also don't think his idea is so far off the mark as to be mocked.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I don't know how I feel about that. That implies that his thinking has to change. Why is it HIS thinking (and I mean that philosophically; I'm asking how we decide who's thoughts get to stay and who's thoughts have to change).

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I think a lot of men have that view, where a female who has lots of sex is a slut where as a guy having lots of sex is fine. I'm with you that the type of viewpoint is sexist and a reason for marching IMO.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I don't know how I feel about that. That implies that his thinking has to change. Why is it HIS thinking (and I mean that philosophically; I'm asking how we decide who's thoughts get to stay and who's thoughts have to change).

He doesn't need to change his beliefs. You and he both know very well I'll defend his right to be puritan if he so desires. But I think it's reasonable to question him on them when he's calling women hypocrites for marching in opposition to a doublestandard he himself is espousing.

Logged

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows. E.F. Benson

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I can't speak for Tick, but I'll just toss out there that my own stance on the issue goes equally for men as it does women. I have no idea where Tick falls on this issue, but you may be making assumptions about his position that are not correct. And I'm not about to call someone a hypocrite who participated in the marches, whatever their stance on a subset of such complex issues. My general take on protests, marches, and the like is basically, I feel they're kinda silly and don't accomplish anything, and they tend to bring out the worst in people such that whatever good intentions may or may not have existed for staging the thing in the first place, they end up getting completely buried. But that is just my generalized feeling. As to specific people who participate, if you feel the cause was just and your participation accomplished something positive, that's great. More power to you. For those who participated simply because it was an opportunity to join the mob and self-righteously act out, I can't identify and don't really want to. Of course, many people's reasons for participating are very personal and nuanced, and I can't even begin to say how I feel on a case-by-case basis. But it probably doesn't matter anyway because I'm not even sure my fever-induced ramblings are even making sense at this point.

That said, let me just make it clear that I am NOT drawing any conclusions or making any judgments about anyone who was part of the marches, as if anyone credibly COULD make any generalized conclusions about such a large, diverse group.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 09:09:07 AM by bosk1 »

Logged

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Yes but your moral compass has to come from somewhere. I'm asking from where. What exactly does your moral compass say to you?

What exactly is the point of hammering him? I'm all for demanding someone back up their ideas, and I've been known to heavy hand someone to make the point, but if one thinks, morally, that certain acts demean people, why does that need more? There are people that think that women doing porn - even of their own free will - is demeaning. I don't share that belief, but if you look at it from the perspective of the people that USE porn, predominantly men, and how THEY then perceive women from their roles in porn, it's not a simple calculus. Why is casual sex any different, even if you disagree with it? If men (and perhaps other women) then view that as a woman conceding her worth to her sexual attraction, who's to say that's wrong? Who are you to question the calibration of someone's moral compass? I'm not on trial so I'm not going to define what makes my moral compass acceptable to others.

I don't need to provide a burden of proof the say that I believe those kinds of things cheapen a woman. I'm not asking for agreement, but I'm allowed to have that point of view.

I don't necessarily agree with Tick, but I also don't think his idea is so far off the mark as to be mocked.

For the record, I never condemned causal sex in general. That has many layers to it. Going out on a date, and having it go well and the night ending in consensual sex. That's pretty commonplace.

I said what's the difference between Trump posturing with macho nonsense and the woman who blows a guy she met in the parking lot at 2:00am because shes hammered and willing to do anything.

My point is everyone does some unsavory things, but many are quick to judge others using a different barometer than the one they use for themselves.

I have been in rock bands the better part of 30 years and have been involved in many types of sexual situations. Some situations where I felt guilty the next day for allowing some things to happen I felt probably should not have based on the circumstances. That's just me. I respect woman and feel bad when I felt I took advantage of a situation. Sometimes I have felt, "man I wish I hadn't let that happen"

What can I say, I'm an old school gentleman by nature, who has always opened up the car door for my dates and treat woman with great respect.But I'm human have done things I'm not proud of, no matter how anyone else views it. That's my moral compass.

If this explanation isn't good enough, please don't ask for more because this is the best I can give you all.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I could not disagree more, and I explained my feelings in the last post.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I think a lot of men have that view, where a female who has lots of sex is a slut where as a guy having lots of sex is fine. I'm with you that the type of viewpoint is sexist and a reason for marching IMO.

Maybe it's my age, but I tend to look at things from a more psychological perspective than a class or gender one. I know very well that those things factor in, but we as humans are an interesting mix of patterns/trends and individuality. I think in this day and age of social media, and the empowerment that not only are our opinions to be treated as FACT (they're not), but that our opinions MATTER (insofar as they are confused with fact, they do not), we have this misbelief that we are all unique as snowflakes and that "you don't know ME!". But the reality is far more complicated than that. Trends and patterns exist, and we aren't even conscious of them most of the time. I don't at all think that "women are sluts/men are studs" as the number of sexual partners goes up. I think it's far more likely that - for both men and women - it's more indicative of how that person feels about themselves more than anything.

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I think a lot of men have that view, where a female who has lots of sex is a slut where as a guy having lots of sex is fine. I'm with you that the type of viewpoint is sexist and a reason for marching IMO.

Maybe it's my age, but I tend to look at things from a more psychological perspective than a class or gender one. I know very well that those things factor in, but we as humans are an interesting mix of patterns/trends and individuality. I think in this day and age of social media, and the empowerment that not only are our opinions to be treated as FACT (they're not), but that our opinions MATTER (insofar as they are confused with fact, they do not), we have this misbelief that we are all unique as snowflakes and that "you don't know ME!". But the reality is far more complicated than that. Trends and patterns exist, and we aren't even conscious of them most of the time. I don't at all think that "women are sluts/men are studs" as the number of sexual partners goes up. I think it's far more likely that - for both men and women - it's more indicative of how that person feels about themselves more than anything.

That all may be true, but I am not sure what point you are getting at besides you don't feel (and I don't feel) "women are sluts/men are studs" as the number of sexual partners goes up. That doesn't mean others don't feel this way (and I know people who feel exactly this way which I believe is wrong).

Well, I believe Tick was calling most of the marchers hypocrites based on his own interpretation of sluttiness. Given that interpretation is probably very different for men and women, I think it's reasonable to call him out, if for no other reason to point out that he's living proof of why they need to march in the first place.

I think a lot of men have that view, where a female who has lots of sex is a slut where as a guy having lots of sex is fine. I'm with you that the type of viewpoint is sexist and a reason for marching IMO.

Maybe it's my age, but I tend to look at things from a more psychological perspective than a class or gender one. I know very well that those things factor in, but we as humans are an interesting mix of patterns/trends and individuality. I think in this day and age of social media, and the empowerment that not only are our opinions to be treated as FACT (they're not), but that our opinions MATTER (insofar as they are confused with fact, they do not), we have this misbelief that we are all unique as snowflakes and that "you don't know ME!". But the reality is far more complicated than that. Trends and patterns exist, and we aren't even conscious of them most of the time. I don't at all think that "women are sluts/men are studs" as the number of sexual partners goes up. I think it's far more likely that - for both men and women - it's more indicative of how that person feels about themselves more than anything.

That all may be true, but I am not sure what point you are getting at besides you don't feel (and I don't feel) "women are sluts/men are studs" as the number of sexual partners goes up. That doesn't mean others don't feel this way (and I know people who feel exactly this way which I believe is wrong).

My point is, and it's not that different than Tick's in some ways, that we have gotten to the point that we've forgotten that we all as individuals look at the world through our own lenses, and that if we're to talk about others, we HAVE to look at the world through THEIR lenses to do so. This is a great and easy thing in some ways - it's pretty simple to look at the world through the eyes of a homosexual, and imagine what it would be like if the entire world thought your relationship with your partner was "disgusting and immoral", when you didn't do anything other than respond to that uncontrollable emotion called "love". But it gets harder when you have to look at the world through the eyes of someone you don't agree with. The potential racist. The man (if you're a woman). The woman (if you're a man). The child molester.

The hypocrisy for me isn't in the number of people we might have slept with, or the circumstances under which that happened, but rather in the way that we forget to accommodate opinions that differ from ours. I think to the extent that someone (man or woman) slept with a bunch of random people to (artificially) bolster their self-confidence, and make themselves look more attractive or desirable to others, but then judge and condemn Trump for doing the same thing is a shade hypocritical. Doesn't mean that Trump picked the right method, but you have to at least account for the possibility that Trump saying those things to Billy Bush isn't about deep seated, core beliefs about women, but rather is a way to make himself seem better than Billy Bush. Childish, maybe, but for every middle age man that ditched his wife for the young hottie at work and bought a Porsche, it ought to not be unfamiliar.

I'm still trying to figure out why the person that less than half the country chose to be president saying idiotic shit like this should somehow be equated to whether or not any of us have an opinion about the sex lives of women who don't appreciate the marginalization that is inherent in him saying these things.

I'm still trying to figure out why the person that less than half the country chose to be president saying idiotic shit like this should somehow be equated to whether or not any of us have an opinion about the sex lives of women who don't appreciate the marginalization that is inherent in him saying these things.

Because it's ALL just the judgment of one person about another. Your "idiotic shit" is someone else's "doctrine" and vice versa. "One Man's Meat" (great song by Deep Purple, by the way). My big problem here is that someone - not you, but also NOT ME - has unilaterally decreed that it's okay to judge Trump and make a bunch of assumptions about him, but somehow other people are off limits (including OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, so you can't use the "higher standard" excuse).

Well, "she" or any other person running for president that didn't make it don't have as much potential to alter my way of life, IMO, that's why I question the relevance, but again, my way of looking at things, I guess.

We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since. I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real. This is fairly well documented.

That's actually not true. As soon as Trump started to look like the winner, the futures market tanked and even bottomed out, hitting the downside limits.

The markets rebounded the next day, though.

Logged

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since. I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real. This is fairly well documented.

That's actually not true. As soon as Trump started to look like the winner, the futures market tanked and even bottomed out, hitting the downside limits.